Accelerated biological aging may increase risk of dementia, stroke
A hallmark of accelerated aging appears to be linked to an increased risk of dementia and stroke, a new study says.
Shorter telomere length in a person's white blood cells is associated with the two brain diseases, researchers reported Wednesday in the journal Neurology.
However, the link was not found in people with healthy lifestyle habits, researchers added.
"Our findings support the potential benefits of working to improve your risk factors such as maintaining a healthy weight, limiting alcohol and getting enough sleep and exercise in reducing the risk of age-related brain disease even in people who are already showing signs of damaging biological aging," senior researcher Dr. Christopher Anderson, an associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, said in a news release.
Telomeres are protective caps at the ends of chromosomes. Often compared to the plastic tips at the ends of shoelaces, telomeres serve a similar function -- preventing chromosomes from unravelling.
Telomeres shorten every time cells divide, making them useful in estimating a person's biological age, researchers said. Biological age reflects wear-and-tear from the stresses the body endures over time, and can differ greatly from the chronological age reflected by a person's birthday.
For this study, researchers analyzed genetic data for more than 356,000 people participating in UK Biobank, a large-scale health study in England, Scotland and Wales.
Researchers divided the participants into three groups based on whether telomeres in their white blood cells (leukocytes) were short, medium or long.
The team then compared telomere length to each person's lifestyle habits, as well as whether they'd developed dementia, stroke or depression.
During an average seven years of follow-up, nearly 26,000 people developed at least one of these three age-related brain diseases.
People with the shortest telomeres had 5.8 cases of the three brain diseases per 1,000 person-years, compared to 3.9 cases per 1,000 for those with the longest telomeres. Person-years reflect both the number of people in a study and the amount of time each person spends in a study.
Overall, people with short telomeres were 11% more likely to develop one of the brain diseases, after accounting for other risk factors, results show.
They specifically had an 8% increased risk of stroke, 19% increased risk of dementia, and 14% increased risk of late-life dementia, the study says.
However, people with short telomeres didn't have an increased risk if they made healthier lifestyle choices, like eating a good diet and exercising regularly, researchers found.
"These results suggest that healthy lifestyle behaviors could delay the aging of our cells and reduce the frequency of these diseases, especially in people who are greater risk," Anderson said.
Researchers noted that the study can't show a direct cause-and-effect link between telomere length and brain health, only an association between the two.
More information
The University of Utah has more about telomeres and biological aging.
Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who needs a statin? New Intermountain Study compares prescribing recommendations based on traditional risk factors vs. coronary artery calcium scoring
MURRAY, Utah (ABc4 Utah) – A new study by researchers at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City aims to determine the best method to screen and evaluate patients who are at risk of developing coronary heart disease to identify those who would benefit from statin medication to lower their cholesterol. Currently, cardiologists determine a patient's need for a statin medication based on traditional risk factors, which includes using the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) to determine their risk. The PCE method calculates coronary risk by assessing risk factors of age, sex, total and HDL cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and whether someone has diabetes and is a smoker. However, a new approach to determining risk and selecting a statin is the use of the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, which is determined by taking a low-radiation dose image of the heart using computed tomography – a CT scan – to look for calcium deposits in plaques in the heart's coronary arteries. Which approach is more effective? The new study aims to find out. 'Our study is now fully enrolled with over 5,600 patients, and in this abstract, we wanted to look at baseline characteristics and differences in statin prescribing recommendations,' said Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, co-principal investigator of the study and distinguished clinical and research physician at Intermountain Health. 'The question we want to answer is whether we can do a better job in selecting people who need a statin for primary coronary risk reduction by using the coronary artery calcium score, rather than just putting coronary risk factors into an equation,' said Dr. Anderson. 'That is, is it more effective to use direct imaging to assess evidence of plaque burden or a risk probability equation? That's what we're aiming to find out.' The new study was presented on March 29 at the American College of Cardiology's Annual Scientific Sessions meeting in Chicago. The research is part of CorCal Outcomes, a large, randomized clinical trial at Intermountain Health that is comparing the PCE versus CAC score guidance to initiate a statin prescription for patients for primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Since 2019, Intermountain heart researchers have enrolled 5,615 patients into the study, with patients having an average age of 64.1 years old, and 51.3% of the study subjects being women. 'This CorCal Outcomes study has been a systemwide, eight-year effort to complete enrollment,' said Dr. Anderson. Intermountain patients at risk of coronary disease were invited to enroll in the study, and those agreeing to participate were randomized into two groups: those assessed using the PCE or those evaluated using their coronary artery calcium score. Results of scoring by their assigned risk assessment tool were sent in letters to their personal physicians, including whether a statin was recommended based on a high-risk score. Patients in the two groups in the study were found to have very similar baseline characteristics. However, researchers found that the rate of statin medication recommendations were different. The study is expected to conclude in early 2026, at which time a comparison of outcomes, including deaths, heart attacks, strokes, and revascularizations during up to seven years, and an average of over four years, of follow-up will be made. For the enrollment phase, researcher found a recommendation to start a statin was made much more often based on the PCE. In the PCE group, 50.7% of patients were recommended a statin, with another 21.7% to be considered for one. By contrast, in the CAC group, only 22.3% of patients were recommended a statin. This large difference in statin recommendations appears to be explained by the strong influence of older age in recommending a statin by the PCE and, in contrast, the frequent finding of a zero or low CAC score in many older patients, leading to a no-statin recommendation in them. Knowing which score is most effective is important, said Dr. Anderson, so that physicians can get statin medication to the right people, and not prescribe statins to those who don't need it. This is especially important considering that statins entail costs and can have side effects, including muscle aches and an increased risk of diabetes. 'We know there's a huge difference in prescribing recommendations, and next year we are anxious to see the impact of these differences on outcomes,' said Dr. Anderson. 'These findings can have a huge impact on how we practice preventive medicine in the future and how many and whom we put on a statin or other lipid-lowering drugs.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Sponsored by Intermountain Health. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Anti-vaxxer or ‘highly capable'? Ex-Harvard Medical School expert tapped by RFK Jr. for vaccine panel defies easy categories
Yet the Swedish-born scientist's views on vaccines are complex, and the rush to categorize him underscores the intense polarization of public science that accelerated during the pandemic and has continued unabated, some in the scientific community argue. His appointment came two days after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Advertisement Critics of Kennedy's move pointed out the former members had undergone a lengthy vetting process that ensured they had the right expertise and no conflicts of interest. Advertisement '[Kulldorff] is a serious and highly capable vaccine scientist who was unjustly put forth as part of a bad tribe of people who wanted to hurt the health of the nation, when all he was doing was trying to put forth a better plan for managing the country's response to the pandemic,' said Dr. Jeffrey Flier, an endocrinologist and former dean of Harvard Medical School. 'The opposition to contrarian views was pathological and ultimately detrimental to public health.' Kulldorff, who works as an infectious-disease and vaccine consultant in Connecticut, is best known as the co-author of the But, because it was published at the height of the pandemic in October 2020, many public health officials excoriated the declaration, saying lifting lockdowns that early would have caused many more deaths and hospitalizations and overwhelmed the health care system. Kulldorff is among other skeptics of lockdown and vaccine measures who were once vilified but have now gained new influence in the Trump administration. Advertisement 'It is unfortunate if each administration is trying to promote its preferred views, while vaccine science does have a lot of strong evidence and it should not be politicized,' said Kulldorff on Thursday declined to comment on his appointment to the CDC panel or discuss his views on vaccines. But in a January interview with the Globe, Kulldorff said the Great Barrington Declaration was borne out of frustration. In the fall of 2020, Kulldorff said he began communicating with several other scientists who were dismayed by the 'one-sided nature' of the public policy discussion over the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them was The trio ultimately agreed to meet for three days in Great Barrington, a town nestled in the Berkshire Mountains of Western Massachusetts. Between walks in the woods, they crafted a succinct statement opposing the lockdowns, noting that there was no scientific consensus for school closures and other stringent measures. They argued for a more targeted approach focused on protecting those most vulnerable, particularly the elderly, while life should resume as normal for everyone else. 'It's a basic principle of public health to protect those most vulnerable,' Kulldorff said in the January interview. 'Instead, [lockdown measures] protected the laptop class while exposing the working class.' Advertisement Almost immediately after its publication online, the declaration prompted a visceral backlash in the scientific community and among members of the Biden administration. Kulldorff said he received anonymous death threats via email and accusations that he supported 'mass murder,' he recalled. Others alleged that he was part of a right-wing conspiracy financed by the the oil billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch, he said. Facebook deleted a page set up by the scientists, and Kulldorff's account on Twitter, now X, was suspended. It later emerged that two of the nation's top federal health officials — National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the National Institutes of Health — worked behind the scenes However, Kulldorff has repeatedly stressed that he is a supporter of vaccines and has called them 'one of the most significant health inventions in history.' At the same time, Kulldorff said he opposed the vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic in part because, in his view, people who had already been infected with the virus did not need them; and vaccination efforts should have been focused on the elderly, who were dying at far greater rates. 'Vaccines are a vital medical invention, allowing people to obtain immunity without the risk that comes from getting sick,' Kulldorff Advertisement Kulldorff was dismissed from his hospital, Mass General Brigham, and from Harvard Medical School, over the hospital's requirement for staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Kulldorff has said he declined to get the COVID shot because he had already been infected with the virus, which gave him immunity; and he didn't consider it ethical to get the vaccine while others needed it more. Kulldorff also said he has an immune deficiency that made him especially vulnerable to complications from vaccines. 'I am very much in favor of vaccines, but I was against the vaccine mandates for a few reasons,' Kulldorff said in the January interview . 'If you already had COVID, there is no need for the vaccine. It gives you natural immunity. It's better for others to take it.' Chris Serres can be reached at
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Exposure to 'forever chemicals' before birth linked to higher blood pressure in kids
Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- toxic chemicals found in products like nonstick pans and personal care items -- can linger in the body for up to 20 years, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals," professor and lead study author Mingyu Zhang of Harvard Medical School told ABC News. Forever chemicals have come under growing scrutiny in recent years because they build up in the body and may trigger health problems, according to a growing body of research. In this new study, Zhang and his team found that when babies were exposed in the womb to specific types of forever chemicals -- PFDeA, PFNA, and PFUnA -- they had higher systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) later in life, possibly because these chemicals can cross the placenta during pregnancy and affect early development. MORE: How PFAS are entering America's water supply "PFAS exposure in the womb can affect fetal growth. There may be potential mechanisms that involve inflammation and oxidative stress that can cause PFAS' long-term health-related changes to blood pressure," Zhang said. The risk does not affect all children equally. The association was stronger for teens, boys and Black children. In boys, higher exposure to the forever chemical PFDeA was linked to a 9% greater risk of high blood pressure from ages 6 to 12, and a 17% greater risk during the teen years. Zhang cites previous studies showing that boys could be more sensitive to environmental pollutants due to slower removal rates of toxins from the body and higher rates of buildup. When it comes to the effect on older children, Zhang speculated that because PFAS stay in the body for so long, it may take longer for their effects to take hold. Children of Black mothers showed stronger links between PFAS exposure and high blood pressure, which the authors feel may reflect the combined impact of systemic racism, housing segregation and greater environmental exposure. "We know that due to historic reasons, Black and Hispanic communities face a higher burden of environmental pollutants," he says. Some of the forever chemicals -- including PFHpS, PFOS, and PFOA -- were linked to lower diastolic blood pressure in early childhood, the study found. That's the lower number in a blood pressure reading reflecting when the heart rests between beats. But as kids got older, the effect faded and may have even reversed -- these same chemicals were possibly tied to higher diastolic pressure in adolescence. MORE: EPA announces limits on some 'forever chemicals,' but just a fraction are covered Zhang said that these findings matter because children with high blood pressure are much more likely to carry it into adulthood, raising their long-term risk for heart disease, stroke, and kidney problems. Early-life blood pressure patterns can set the stage for serious health issues later on, he noted. He called for more research into the health effects of forever chemicals as well as policies that focus on reducing their use. "Meaningful change to reduce PFAS exposure in our daily life requires policy-level change on the state and federal levels," he said. "This will really help the health of children for generations to come." Dr. Adeiyewunmi (Ade) Osinubi is an emergency medicine resident physician at the University of Pennsylvania and is a member of the ABC News Medical Unit. Exposure to 'forever chemicals' before birth linked to higher blood pressure in kids originally appeared on
